But there is no reason to think they judge has done this. Instead, there is every reason to think the judge made the right decisions when confronted with a hostile and mentally challenged defendent. Why ignore that and jump to the conclusion that there is some bigger issue here?
The article, written by Paul Walter, is the one who suggests there is a larger issue here.
From the article:
This situation, spotlighting the close relationship between Josephine County's Mental Health and the court system, is a frightening specter. If a judge can order a psychological evaluation on a person for being different, then we are all in danger because we are all different. This is extremely alarming. Is this why $28 million is being spent on mental health in Josephine County, with a population of only 80,000?
I thought this was the issue of importance raised in the article. If you read my previous post, you will see that I found merit in IronEagle's comments regarding the validity of the judge's rulings. However, as a generic tactic by the state (used by the judge here) I remain skeptical about courts declaring people mentally incompetent so the state can detain them (short of proving they are dangerous to themselves or others). We don't know that the man was charged with contempt, and we don't know some of the other circmstances surrounding his arrest. This whole discussion is therefore "academic" and should be treated as such. Again, see my post #110 - if the guy is a crackpot, then the judge should basically say so, make a ruling, and continue with the trial, verdict, and sentencing for the traffic violations.
No he shouldn't. If the judge did that then he'd have people yelling about taking advantage of a mentally ill person! The judge did the right thing. He was confronted by a defendent who shows obvious signs of being unbalanced so he had him evaluated before proceeding. That was the RIGHT thing to do in this case, no matter what "generic" concerns you may have.
I have no idea who Paul Walter is or what he thinks, but if he takes this crackpot seriously then he's a crackpot too. In any case, just becuase some person chooses to write about it and publish it in some obscure place doesn't give credibility to whatever "issue" the writer wants to throw in.
Sorry, the judge was right, the defendent is a nut and it was handled properly. If you want to argue about some generic problems in the system then I'd advise you to go find an actual example of such an abuse and make your case. Let this one go, it's a loser.